And speaking of cartoons, enough with the 3D animation. 2D animation generally looks better in my opinion. And since everyone thinks that cartoons are just for kids, cartoons have gone 3D because of how simple minded children generally are.

It depends, I love a great looking 3D film, I mean, look at Pixar. But I do think I know what meann. There's more freedom wwith animation in general. The Illusionist could attest to this - a greed for sure in a few shining gems

That flickfilosopher site isn't good, IMO. Namely, she completely misses the point made by Knocked Up as well as the other reviews of Judd Apatow's films. She's very narrow-minded. It's almost like she only watched the first 30 minutes of the movie then wrote a review whilst pretending she watched the whole thing. My opinion is lowered too by how she thinks someone can have an abortion without feeling any remorse - I mean, seriously, she must be a psychopath to think that (this is coming from someone who's always voted in favor abortion, by the way). How can she be so critical of others when she's so easy on herself? I could go on and on but I think I've made my point.

My movie trend that needs to stop is that flickfilosopher site. She reminds me of many other critics - dumb, opinionative, and not at all analytical/evaluative of the work that went into making the entertainment.

That flickfilosopher site isn't good, IMO. Namely, she completely misses the point made by Knocked Up as well as the other reviews of Judd Apatow's films. She's very narrow-minded. It's almost like she only watched the first 30 minutes of the movie then wrote a review whilst pretending she watched the whole thing. My opinion is lowered too by how she thinks someone can have an abortion without feeling any remorse - I mean, seriously, she must be a psychopath to think that (this is coming from someone who's always voted in favor abortion, by the way). How can she be so critical of others when she's so easy on herself? I could go on and on but I think I've made my point.

My movie trend that needs to stop is that flickfilosopher site. She reminds me of many other critics - dumb, opinionative, and not at all analytical/evaluative of the work that went into making the entertainment.

I've been reading her site for over 10 years. She's easily one of the best, and most honest reviewers out there. Knocked Up sucked and is totally overrated, just like most Apatow fliks. The only problem I have with her is her constant ranting on Misogyny and feminist issues. It's her site, though, so she can do and say what she wants to.

My issue with her, strangely, is that they're not even reviews. She just uses that to get people's attention then goes off on completely unrelated tangents and never stops rambling.

The only reason I chose the Apatow ones was because 40 Year-Old Virgin was the first movie on the list I recognized. She's such a bad critic that I probably could have told she was a bad critic from any-off topic rambling, but I assumed she at least tried to be evaluative of the work that went into making the film.

The 40 Year-Old Virgin review, for example, demonstrates her stupidity in the field. She proposes removing the comedy in order to make the touching moments more touching, but that wouldn't do anything. It's obvious that what would have made the touching moments more touching was an original orchestral score; even a monkey could see that. It truly seems like, with that one, she only watched the first 30 minutes then pretended like she watched the whole thing, because that movie follows the common trend of characters thinking one thing at first then realizing the opposite is true through the course of the story and she doesn't even acknowledge that.

And overrated/underrated should never even be mentioned in or factored into a review (I don't know whether she has, but it seems likely based on what you said), because the review is supposed to evaluate the work that went into making the movie. A movie's success or lack there of doesn't mean the writer, actors, director, music composer, etc. did any better or worse a job. I understand rooting for the underdog, but critics are supposed to leave their emotions at the door and evaluate the work that went into making the movie (and this is why it's crucial the critic have experience doing what they're critiquing like writing, acting, etc.).

Leave their emotions at the door? Well, that's no fun! She's obviously not your style, and that's cool, but the things you mention are the reason I like her! She does her own thing. Goes off the rails. If I wanted another boring, by-the-numbers review I would go check out one of the 100 or so other reviewers on RT. I don;t want her to talk about the movie making process. I want HER personal view on the movie. Movie reviews are not meant to be objective. Objective = boring. Once again, though, to each his own.

I guess I shouldn't say she needs to stop. I do wish she wouldn't call her opinionated blog a collection of movie reviews though. It's like how Fox News calling themselves Fair and Balanced makes it that much more irksome. Oh well.

I kind of disagree with you as well. Any sort of review should in no way be objective. How can it be? How is a critic supposed to account for the various different likes and dislikes of the reader? That's impossible. A critic should approach a work in the way the work affected them. A review is an opinion. Also, their are many many different ways to review a work, and no one is more correct than the other. If she's coming from a feminist background then it would make sense that she would choose to review works in that manner. You don't have to agree with her reviews, or read them, but I can certainly appreciate the fact that she chooses to review movies in that way.

Well, I think there's a fundamental difference of opinion then. Critics are supposed to teach the artist, basically - in other words, provide constructive criticism. I understand how critics have lost sight of their purpose over the last century and started writing reviews as recommendations to prospective customers, but that's not what critics originally strove for.

Let me put this way. Even when I see a review I agree with and that is praising the artist like video game reviews that simply say "The music is pretty good" when they get to that part of the review, I think "This person isn't qualified to critique music; heck, they're not even trying." Stating one's opinion (often times stating it as a fact - argh!) isn't the same as critiquing. Even when reviews are viewed as recommendations to prospective customers, a review like that doesn't let the prospective customer know anything - did the critic only say that because the music is accommodating to his/her tastes or does that mean the music is actually well-written, well-played, well-recorded, etc.?

A critic is supposed to criticize, pure and simple. But a criticism will always be written through the lens of the critic, and therefore simply cannot be objective. As well, this should be knowledge going in to any sort of critique. Why should a critic have to stop and say, "This is my opinion," when the fact that his/her name as author denotes that.

And, that a critic is supposed to teach an artist is a flawed view, otherwise, why are criticisms and reviews still written on pieces of art from hundreds of years ago? Criticism serves many many purposes, and to view them as having one purpose is flawed. If anything, I'd say the purest purpose for criticism is simply to open up some form of dialogue on the work being critiqued.

Exactly, Azreal. I don't get how Critics are supposed to "teach" filmmakers anything. Why you think that's their job is beyond me. They are paid to give their opinion on the movie. Preferably an interesting one. If all they did was constructively talk about the movie point by point I wouldn't bother reading it.I want to know how the movie made them feel and whether that was a good thing or not. Get me excited to see it or happy that I won't waste my money. Go ahead and talk about cinematography, camera angles, and special effects, but don't go in to too much detail. I don't read reviews for specifics. I just want to know if a movie is worth my time or not. The best thing to do is find one or two reviewers that seem to jibe with your way of thinking and stick with them. If Critics like MaryAnn don't work for you, move on to someone else. Simple as that. I'm sure there are plenty that think they know everything and are happy to tell the filmmakers exactly what they should be doing.

Reviews are the bane of my existence. I HATE them. I think they create expectations and frame the movie in a way that interferes with your own critical apparatus. That being said, I understand their function. Really though, I wish we would drop any sort rating system from them. It's lazy. If I'm going to read the review, I should be able to take the merit away from the content, not how many thumbs the reviewer waved around or how many stars were in their eyes.

Logged

Thoren: Astronomers fucking love stars and shit. Whitman was a bitch.Hidoshi: Walt Whitman could beat you with both dicks tied behind his back.

That's the thing though: stating an opinion is not the same as critiquing. No one is trying to stop people from stating their opinions. People should not, however, pretend like they're doing more than that by calling themselves critics when they're not actually critiquing anything.

And whether you want to believe it, the original purpose of critics was to critique artists. I understand they've lost sight of that over time (and that answers your question about reviews being written about very old works, Azreal), but then they should also lose claim to the title of critic. It's not some meaningless title just anybody deserves.

As for finding a good critic, that's easier said than done (believe me, I've tried) because I actually hold them to a standard - to make up for (most of) them not holding themselves to any standard. I've found critics that try 100% but still fall short because they don't have any know-how in what they're supposed to be critiquing, but I haven't found any critics that are actually qualified to critique what they're supposed to be critiquing. I'm willing to settle/compromise for unqualified critics that show respect to whom they're critiquing, but not the psychopath-turned-critic I describe below.

Lastly, the notion that calling someone a crappy artist, telling them that their work infallibly sucks, and demanding they quit immediately constitutes critiquing as well as a profession is a very, very sad notion. This will never be acceptable behavior in my eyes.

Van, I agree in regards to ratings and "thumbs up" and such. A well written review is all I need. I can't stand Rotten Tomatoes, which makes it seem like either a movie is good or it sucks and ignores all the other possibilities. I would hope that people don't just look at stars or ratings without reading, but I imagine that's how it goes for most.

Darc, it sounds to me that you are just a bit more demanding than others. I love movies, and I all I ask out of a reviewer is to have a similar love of movies, and a talent at writing about it. I agree that all too many people can call themselves a "critic", but it takes a special "something" to garner a following of devoted readers who anxiously await your next review. Oh, well. I grow weary of this discussion. *shrugs*